isRFC2616Token() from HTTPParsers and isValidHTTPToken() from HTTPValidation are doing exactly the same thing. We should refactor to avoid code duplication.
Created attachment 195038 [details] Patch
Comment on attachment 195038 [details] Patch OK. We can consider splitting parsing and validation again if this file grows unwieldy. As far as naming goes, "isRFC2616Token" seems a little less descriptive to me than "isValidHTTPToken". The reason why I like the remaining name less is that one could wonder whether being an RFC2616 token is a built-in property of a String, like being atomic or being static. The other name reads a little more like a validity check that it is. But the difference is very small, and maybe it's just me thinking so.
Created attachment 195105 [details] Patch for landing - Renamed to isValidHTTPToken().
Comment on attachment 195105 [details] Patch for landing Clearing flags on attachment: 195105 Committed r146908: <http://trac.webkit.org/changeset/146908>
All reviewed patches have been landed. Closing bug.